Skip to main content

Reply to this post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: cashel Date: May 23, 2004 6:42am
Forum: opensource_movies Subject: Mission Accomplished

My review did its job..Plenty of abuse hurled at me but as most of it was.dishonest , no worries. It will all be worthwhile if THAT film does not inspire others

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ridetheory Date: May 23, 2004 7:24am
Forum: opensource_movies Subject: Re: Mission Accomplished

Jack, what the heck kind of mission are you ON?

Let's dissect your review, shall we?

> Hate somebody? This movie shows how to get even.

It has been repeatedly stated by everyone in this long, drawn-out argument, that there is no malice toward George Putnam, let alone any effort to "get even" (which implies that Putnam somehow wronged someone, and their motive was revenge). Personally, I find the message of "Perversion for Profit" repulsive, but I have nothing against the man himself, and would probably enjoy a good argument with him. From what I've read about the guy, even people who disagree with his right-wing politics find him quite charming.

> Get a video of your enemy, delete his
> spoken words.

Well, actually, EDIT his spoken words, in a way that nobody would ever assume he actually said.

> Now add your venemous words

Which didn't happen, you just made that part up...

> and hey presto, your enemy is shown as a
> vile,disp,icable person,worthy only of c
> ontempt..

This is untrue, and you know it. His IDEAS are mocked, and yes, he looks like a fool (just as he does in the original film), but the whole "vile, dispicable person" angle is something you dreamed up, then stated as though it were a fact. It is simply NOT TRUE. Nobody attacked George Putnam in any way personally. They have however, edited an obscure 1960s film in which George Putnam said some awfully silly things, to make him say some even sillier things.

> For legal protection, you add a disclaimer,
> at the end,

There was no reason to do anything "for legal protection" when the film in question was in the public domain. I could chop up Mark Twain's collected works and make him come out in favor of homosexual marriage if I wanted to, and it would be A-OK, because it is in the public domain.

> in your geek words,

Now, this is an insult, plain and simple.

> saying this was only a joke.,


> and Putman is silenced, because mud sticks

Putnam isn't silenced. He is free to say whatever he wants, and the original work is still in the archives. In what way was he silenced? Isn't he still on the radio in Southern California?

This post was modified by ridetheory on 2004-05-23 14:24:04